Protocol | Workplace

As OnlyFans abandons sex workers, here’s who is filling the void

Sex workers and porn sites are skeptical of OnlyFans' excuses for banning "sexually explicit conduct" and say that they will not be deterred.

Jasmine, a creator who shared her sex work on OnlyFans

Sex workers and porn provider sites are skeptical that payment-processor demands actually necessitate OnlyFans banning porn.

Photo: Jasmine

In the days after OnlyFans first announced it would ban porn, thousands of sex workers created new accounts at JustFor.fans, applied for identity verification and flooded the porn site's customer service inbox. JustFor.fans, often called the second-choice streaming site for OnlyFans creators, saw its server traffic jump more than three times its average (and stay there) after OnlyFans said it would be prohibiting what it calls "sexually explicit conduct" beginning in October.

Thousands more creators shared on Twitter, Reddit and other online forums that they would be leaving OnlyFans in the coming months. Some communities started offering how-tos for sex workers to transfer their content and subscriber bases to new sites. Some creators — if they could afford it — announced they would be leaving the sex worker business entirely. Five days later, the company reversed course, telling creators it had "suspended" the porn ban because it had "secured the necessary assurances" to continue supporting them.

OnlyFans had said that it will ban "sexually explicit conduct" because the move is necessary to maintain its status with banks and payment providers like Visa and Mastercard, which have strict rules for websites that provide pornography, including age and identity verification requirements, documented consent and a review process for illegal material.

But sex workers and porn provider sites are skeptical that payment-processor demands actually necessitated OnlyFans banning porn. Many have instead suggested that the company chose to abandon porn because it is seeking venture capital investment and the traditional model of growth for tech companies, neither of which are particularly fond of explicit content. Axios reported that OnlyFans was struggling to find VC investors the same day that the company announced it would be banning sexually explicit conduct.

"Everybody just thinks this is a Mastercard or Visa issue, and it's not. Mastercard has several times over said that they are not trying to remove the internet of porn, they are trying to remove the internet of illegal content and nonconsensual content. There are a whole lot of factors about OnlyFans doing what they are doing, and only a small percentage of it has to do with Mastercard," Dominic Ford, the founder of JustFor.fans, told Protocol. "It seems to me that the major stakeholders of OnlyFans have made their money and are happy to get out and sink the ship while they are doing it."

"The proposed October 1, 2021 changes are no longer required due to banking partners' assurances that OnlyFans can support all genres of creators," the company said in a statement to Protocol.

OnlyFans creators have long complained about the company's inability to address illegal content and sex worker reports about consent, harassment and other issues. The new suspension of the ban has not changed the minds of sex workers feeling burned and abandoned; many said they will continue to transition away from OnlyFans and no longer trust the company's assurances on Twitter and Reddit forums. "I do think that those of us who can move sites regardless should since OF have proven time and again that they don't care about the SWs on the platform," one creator wrote.

Sex workers need robust systems of protection wherever they operate; while OnlyFans was a cheaper way to make money than some other sites, it didn't provide that protection. "Being someone that was a creator on that platform for a year and a half now, I very much knew that I only existed as a money-making tool for them. My emails never get replied to, my calls for help with messages were getting ignored. I think that's pretty much an indicator of how they feel about their users," Jasmine, a creator who shared her sex work on OnlyFans through a high-performing account, explained.

"OnlyFans introduced sex work to a lot more people, yes, but they have always done it in such a terrible way. They don't understand or care for the creators on their platform. They didn't moderate their content, they let 18-year-old girls who don't know anything get on and then get their nudes leaked. They do nothing to protect creators," Jasmine said.

Jasmine has already begun to remove her content from the site and wonders if she'll ever return to sex work online. She's building her own platform for creators and content that's safe-for-work, and wants to focus on that for now. "I'm done with OnlyFans, and it seems like they are done with us, too. They want to become a mainstream platform that can get investors and make more money from celebrities."

Even if JustFor.fans attracts most of OnlyFans' current sex-work business, Ford has no plans to ever expand beyond pornography — and sees that as a selling point for sex workers. "We all saw what the numbers were coming out of the OnlyFans pitch deck, right? If we could achieve half of that, then I will be very happy," he said. "I don't know what their play was, but our play is to make money in the adult entertainment space, period. Those eyes are wide enough, I don't need wider eyes. If we can replace OnlyFans, who evidently were pulling in something like $150 million a month, trust me, I'll be fine."

Ford doesn't foresee issues with payment processors as JustFor.fans continues to grow, and spends most of his day working with banks and vendors. His site already offers a content-reporting system like the one required by Mastercard (in addition to its identity verification process), and they are in the process of launching a consent program that allows creators to request, track and save consent from partners who are registered on the platform, as well as those who aren't. (All of JustFor.fans' staff are current or former sex workers). The company is also hiring more staffers for its prepublication review process.

"I have been inundated with payment vendors who want to be another third-party. We have also accepted crypto as a payment option for years," he said. "Knock on wood, we're fairly well placed to take over for OnlyFans, we're getting all of our ducks in the row. We're also working very closely with our banking partners and our credit card partners to make sure that they feel we are in line with Mastercard's new set of rules."

Thousands of people have registered for account verification with Ford's site in the last few days, but Jasmine isn't one of them. JustFor.fans has a reputation as a place mainly for male sex workers, while OnlyFans' content was produced predominantly by women. Jasmine is skeptical of any site that isn't run by women, for women, who have been in or remain in the sex work community. (There are countless, though lesser-known, alternatives to JustFor.fans, like AVN Stars and FanCentro).

"Obviously there are so many alternatives, everyone has made their own little copy," she said. "I don't know, as a woman, as a content creator, as a sex worker, I don't trust any of these platforms because they are all built by men who don't do any of this work."

Power

How the creators of Spligate built gaming’s newest unicorn

1047 Games is now valued at $1.5 billion after three rounds of funding since May.

1047 Games' Splitgate amassed 13 million downloads when its beta launched in July.

Image: 1047 Games

The creators of Splitgate had a problem. Their new free-to-play video game, a take on the legendary arena shooter Halo with a teleportation twist borrowed from Valve's Portal, was gaining steam during its open beta period in July. But it was happening too quickly.

Splitgate was growing so fast and unexpectedly that the entire game was starting to break, as the servers supporting the game began to, figuratively speaking, melt down. The game went from fewer than 1,000 people playing it at any given moment in time to suddenly having tens of thousands of concurrent players. Then it grew to hundreds of thousands of players, all trying to log in and play at once across PlayStation, Xbox and PC.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt
Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.

While it's easy to get lost in the operational and technical side of a transaction, it's important to remember the third component of a payment. That is, the human behind the screen.

Over the last two years, many retailers have seen the benefit of investing in new, flexible payments. Ones that reflect the changing lifestyles of younger spenders, who are increasingly holding onto their cash — despite reports to the contrary. This means it's more important than ever for merchants to take note of the latest payment innovations so they can tap into the savings of the COVID-19 generation.

Keep Reading Show less
Antoine Nougue,Checkout.com

Antoine Nougue is Head of Europe at Checkout.com. He works with ambitious enterprise businesses to help them scale and grow their operations through payment processing services. He is responsible for leading the European sales, customer success, engineering & implementation teams and is based out of London, U.K.

Protocol | Policy

Why Twitch’s 'hate raid' lawsuit isn’t just about Twitch

When is it OK for tech companies to unmask their anonymous users? And when should a violation of terms of service get someone sued?

The case Twitch is bringing against two hate raiders is hardly black and white.

Photo: Caspar Camille Rubin/Unsplash

It isn't hard to figure out who the bad guys are in Twitch's latest lawsuit against two of its users. On one side are two anonymous "hate raiders" who have been allegedly bombarding the gaming platform with abhorrent attacks on Black and LGBTQ+ users, using armies of bots to do it. On the other side is Twitch, a company that, for all the lumps it's taken for ignoring harassment on its platform, is finally standing up to protect its users against persistent violators whom it's been unable to stop any other way.

But the case Twitch is bringing against these hate raiders is hardly black and white. For starters, the plaintiff here isn't an aggrieved user suing another user for defamation on the platform. The plaintiff is the platform itself. Complicating matters more is the fact that, according to a spokesperson, at least part of Twitch's goal in the case is to "shed light on the identity of the individuals behind these attacks," raising complicated questions about when tech companies should be able to use the courts to unmask their own anonymous users and, just as critically, when they should be able to actually sue them for violating their speech policies.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Protocol | Workplace

Remote work is here to stay. Here are the cybersecurity risks.

Phishing and ransomware are on the rise. Is your remote workforce prepared?

Before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

Photo: Stefan Wermuth/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The delta variant continues to dash or delay return-to-work plans, but before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

So far in 2021, CrowdStrike has already observed over 1,400 "big game hunting" ransomware incidents and $180 million in ransom demands averaging over $5 million each. That's due in part to the "expanded attack surface that work-from-home creates," according to CTO Michael Sentonas.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma
Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol, where she writes about management, leadership and workplace issues in tech. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.
Protocol | Fintech

When COVID rocked the insurance market, this startup saw opportunity

Ethos has outraised and outmarketed the competition in selling life insurance directly online — but there's still an $887 billion industry to transform.

Life insurance has been slow to change.

Image: courtneyk/Getty Images

Peter Colis cited a striking statistic that he said led him to launch a life insurance startup: One in twenty children will lose a parent before they turn 15.

"No one ever thinks that will happen to them, but that's the statistics," the co-CEO and co-founder of Ethos told Protocol. "If it's a breadwinning parent, the majority of those families will go bankrupt immediately, within three months. Life insurance elegantly solves this problem."

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

Latest Stories